https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83421
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81951
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81918
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81922
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82352
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81228
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83428
Bug ID: 83428
Summary: Static initialization and struct with constexpr ctor
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83253
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
I see that I was looking at the wrong leg here. This is a CAND_ADD, not a
CAND_MULT, and I'm getting strange cost results on that path. The proposed
change is still appropriate in my view, but not relevant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61118
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83020
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82961
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82989
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83330
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83414
--- Comment #4 from Pablo M. S. Farias ---
Thank you for the instructions; I'll follow them from now on.
Sorry for the inconveniences.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81914
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81889
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83398
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83198
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83426
Bug ID: 83426
Summary: template argument involves template parameters with
implicit integral conversion
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81635
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83388
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83388
>
> --- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
> I believe we do not stream any references
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67842
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67842
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Dec 14 14:53:40 2017
New Revision: 255636
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255636=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-12-14 Richard Biener
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82722
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83427
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83427
Bug ID: 83427
Summary: [7/8 Regression] [C++17] weak result types and
adaptable functions don't support noexcept functions
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80520
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #61 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 42885
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42885=edit
expand labels before markers
This patch fixes both ia64 problems. Basically, the ebb scheduler gets
thoroughly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83388
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
Possibly, but for now I would be fine with just removing the references and
solving it once we have real pass that attach something to them (perhaps next
stage1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #64 from Ulrich Weigand ---
I'm seeing the same error on spu-elf when building newlib with GCC revision
255614. In case this isn't fixed by more recent changes already, here's a
reduced test case (build with -O -g):
const char *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82468
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82461
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82364
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.4.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82371
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82664
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82880
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82872
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83388
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
I believe we do not stream any references to references and once we start to do
we will need to invent machinery to keep them intact like we have for edges and
symbols. So I would go for removal of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83326
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83326
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Dec 14 14:32:24 2017
New Revision: 255635
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255635=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-12-14 Richard Biener
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83202
Bug 83202 depends on bug 83326, which changed state.
Bug 83326 Summary: [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 648.exchange2_s ~6% performance
regression with r255267 (reproducer attached)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83326
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #65 from Andreas Schwab ---
Author: schwab
Date: Thu Dec 14 15:06:25 2017
New Revision: 255640
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255640=gcc=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/83396
* reload1.c (emit_input_reload_insns): Skip
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83388
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83388
>
> --- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Possibly, but for now I would be fine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #63 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Comment on attachment 42885
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42885
expand labels before markers
If you do this, then we should also revert the var-tracking.c etc. changes to
look for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #62 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Thu Dec 14 15:02:58 2017
New Revision: 255638
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255638=gcc=rev
Log:
[SFN] next/prev_nonnote_insn_bb are no more, even for ports
The patch that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #62 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Thu Dec 14 15:02:58 2017
New Revision: 255638
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255638=gcc=rev
Log:
[SFN] next/prev_nonnote_insn_bb are no more, even for ports
The patch that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82152
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81812
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82060
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83425
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65258
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65258
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Dec 14 15:08:09 2017
New Revision: 255641
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255641=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-12-14 Richard Biener
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82231
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82253
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82167
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82666
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83116
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83084
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83162
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82981
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83269
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81740
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Testcase modified for the testsuite:
>
> int a[8][10] = { [2][5] = 4 }, c;
>
> int
> main ()
> {
> short b;
> int i, d;
> for (b = 4; b >= 0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66974
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Dec 14 15:18:16 2017
New Revision: 255642
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255642=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-12-14 Richard Biener
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68519
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The problem is that duration doesn't have sufficient precision to
represent now+1s as a float (the value is the same as now)
#include
constexpr std::chrono::seconds now(1513266095);
constexpr auto then =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83422
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Comment on attachment 42887
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42887
candidate patch
Preapproved for trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #70 from Alexandre Oliva ---
ktkatchov, I'll submit the patch as soon as it completes testing, which should
be Real Soon Now (TM) :-) If you got the cycles to give it a spin, by all
means let us know how it goes! Thanks,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56210
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81406
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] ICE in |[6/7 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83253
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
OK, for the i386 case, this simply comes down to the following.
- mult_by_coeff_cost (3, E_SImode, true) returns a cost of 4
- mult_by_coeff_cost (4, E_SImode, true) returns a cost of 8
Garbage in,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83422
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 42887
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42887=edit
candidate patch
Here's what I'm testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #66 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Jakub, *nod*, that's among the "changes added to support that".
Ulrich, thanks for the report. r255639 compiles your testcase successfully on
x86_64-linux-gnu-x-spu-elf with -O -g, so I guess the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77291
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2016-08-19 00:00:00 |2017-12-14
--- Comment #2 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81406
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 42886
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42886=edit
gcc8-pr81406.patch
Fixed with r251220. I'll add this testcase to the testsuite (verified it FAILs
with r251218, and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81616
--- Comment #39 from Sebastian Peryt ---
I have tested it on SKX with SPEC2006INT and SPEC2017INT and don't see any
regressions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83429
Bug ID: 83429
Summary: Incorrect line number reported by -Wformat-truncation
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83269
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83412
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
I see. I (obviously) didn't know that. It seems like something worth
documenting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83269
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
With -sanitize=signed-integer-overflow, we get in *.original:
volatile unsigned char a = 1;
long long int b = 2147483648;
int c = (int) a * -2147483647 - (int) -b;
instead of what we get without it:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83269
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66974
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #67 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks for working on this!
As of r255632 I'm still getting:
Error: unaligned opcodes detected in executable segment
on arm targets when building gdb. A reduced testcase is:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #68 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Can you try the #c63 patch? Perhaps the arm backend is yet another thing that
doesn't really like debug insns outside of basic blocks...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83253
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
By contrast, on powerpc64le, we see:
- mult_by_coeff_cost (3, E_SImode, true) returns a cost of 8
- mult_by_coeff_cost (4, E_SImode, true) returns a cost of 4
These are the sort of costs one would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81406
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 14 15:26:00 2017
New Revision: 255643
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255643=gcc=rev
Log:
PR lto/81406
* gcc.dg/lto/pr81406_0.c: New test.
Added:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83422
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83269
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
How can a patch written in 2014 be responsible for a bug in GCC 4.4 exactly?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83403
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947
--- Comment #2 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81841
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81863
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81860
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83419
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #42881|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83425
Bug ID: 83425
Summary: No warning about assignment int to unsigned
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82739
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Do we have an indication that it worked with any 6.x or 7.x release?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83227
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82880
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83204
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83428
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83427
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.3
1 - 100 of 206 matches
Mail list logo